linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: introduce MADV

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Thu, 20 Jun 2019 19:32:15 +0900
From:   Minchan Kim <minchan@...nel.org>
To:     Michal Hocko <mhocko@...nel.org>
Cc:     Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
        linux-mm <linux-mm@...ck.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
        Johannes Weiner <hannes@...xchg.org>,
        Tim Murray <timmurray@...gle.com>,
        Joel Fernandes <joel@...lfernandes.org>,
        Suren Baghdasaryan <surenb@...gle.com>,
        Daniel Colascione <dancol@...gle.com>,
        Shakeel Butt <shakeelb@...gle.com>,
        Sonny Rao <sonnyrao@...gle.com>,
        Brian Geffon <bgeffon@...gle.com>, jannh@...gle.com,
        oleg@...hat.com, christian@...uner.io, oleksandr@...hat.com,
        hdanton@...a.com, lizeb@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] mm: introduce MADV_PAGEOUT

On Thu, Jun 20, 2019 at 11:22:09AM +0200, Michal Hocko wrote:
> On Thu 20-06-19 17:40:40, Minchan Kim wrote:
> > > > > Pushing out a shared page cache
> > > > > is possible even now but this interface gives a much easier tool to
> > > > > evict shared state and perform all sorts of timing attacks. Unless I am
> > > > > missing something we should be doing something similar to mincore and
> > > > > ignore shared pages without a writeable access or at least document why
> > > > > we do not care.
> > > > 
> > > > I'm not sure IIUC side channel attach. As you mentioned, without this syscall,
> > > > 1. they already can do that simply by memory hogging
> > > 
> > > This is way much more harder for practical attacks because the reclaim
> > > logic is not fully under the attackers control. Having a direct tool to
> > > reclaim memory directly then just opens doors to measure the other
> > > consumers of that memory and all sorts of side channel.
> > 
> > Not sure it's much more harder. It's really easy on my experience.
> > Just creating new memory hogger and consume memory step by step until
> > you newly allocated pages will be reclaimed.
> 
> You can contain an untrusted application into a memcg and it will only
> reclaim its own working set.
> 
> > > > 2. If we need fix MADV_PAGEOUT, that means we need to fix MADV_DONTNEED, too?
> > > 
> > > nope because MADV_DONTNEED doesn't unmap from other processes.
> > 
> > Hmm, I don't understand. MADV_PAGEOUT doesn't unmap from other
> > processes, either.
> 
> Either I am confused or missing something. shrink_page_list does
> try_to_unmap and that unmaps from all processes, right?

You don't miss it. It seems now I undetstand what you pointed out.
What you meant is attacker can see what page was faulting-in from other processes
via measuring access delay from his address space and MADV_PAGEOUT makes it more
easiler. Thus, it's an issue regardless of recent mincore fix. Right?
Then, okay, I will add can_do_mincore similar check for the MADV_PAGEOUT syscall
if others have different ideas.

Thanks.